ROHINGYA REFUGEE RESPONSE GENDER ANALYSIS

ROHINGYA REFUGEE RESPONSE GENDER ANALYSIS

JOINT AGENCY RESEARCH REPORT AUGUST 2018 This research report was written to share research results, to contribute to public debate and to invite feedback on development and humanitarian policy and practice. It does not necessarily reflect the policy positions of the organizations jointly publishing it. The views expressed are those of the authors and contributors and not necessarily those of the individual organizations. ROHINGYA REFUGEE RESPONSE GENDER ANALYSIS Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities Rohingya women and children shelter under their umbrellas in the heavy rain outside a distribution center in a refugee camp in the Cox’s Bazar district of Bangladesh.

Photo: Maruf Hasan/Oxfam.

ROHINGYA REFUGEE RESPONSE GENDER ANALYSIS

2 Rohingya Refugee Response Gender Analysis: Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities CONTENTS List of abbreviations 3 Executive summary 4 1 Introduction 10 1.1 Rohingya refugee response 10 1.2 Host community 10 1.3 Gender and GBV issues in Rohingya and host communities 10 1.4 Objectives of the gender analysis 12 2 Methodology 13 2.1 Data collection methods 13 2.2 Sampling 13 2.3 Challenges and limitations 17 3 Findings of the gender analysis 18 3.1 Access to WASH facilities 18 3.2 Menstrual hygiene management (MHM) 22 3.3 Emergency Food Security and Vulnerable Livelihoods (EFSVL) 24 3.4 Nutrition issues 27 3.5 Protection issues 30 3.6 Power analysis 38 3.7 Division of labour in the household 45 3.8 Opportunities for women’s leadership 49 3.9 Disaster preparedness 50 3.10 Access to other services (primarily health) 52 3.11 Feedback and complaints 53 3.12 Capacities and coping strategies 55 3.13 Priority needs 56 3.14 Relationships between host community and Rohingya community 58 4 Conclusion 59 4.1 Recommendations 59 Bibliography 64 Notes 66 Acknowledgements 69

ROHINGYA REFUGEE RESPONSE GENDER ANALYSIS

Rohingya Refugee Response Gender Analysis: Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities 3 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CFS Child-friendly space CwC WG Communication with Communities Working Group EFSVL Emergency Food Security and Vulnerable Livelihoods GA Gender analysis GAM Global acute malnutrition GBV Gender-based violence GiHA Gender in Humanitarian Action IAWG Inter-Agency Working Group ICYF Infant and young child feeding IEC Information, education and communication IGAs Income-generating activities ISCG Inter Sector Coordination Group JRP Joint Response Plan MEAL Monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning MHM Menstrual hygiene management PSEA Prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse RCA Rapid Care Analysis RGA Rapid Gender Analysis SEA Sexual exploitation and abuse SRH Sexual and reproductive health WASH Water, sanitation and hygiene

ROHINGYA REFUGEE RESPONSE GENDER ANALYSIS

4 Rohingya Refugee Response Gender Analysis: Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the time of writing, the total number of Rohingya refugees who have fled the crisis in Myanmar to camps in the Cox’s Bazar district of Bangladesh stood at 905,418. Successive generations of Rohingya refugees have fled to Cox’s Bazar, with the latest influx at roughly 700,000 and with more still trickling in. This constitutes one of the biggest refugee crises in the world at present. The majority of refugees, 82 percent of all households, are living in Ukhia upazila (sub-district), with the second largest group, 17 percent of households, in Teknaf upazila.

These sub-districts border Myanmar and are the main crossing points for refugees. The Joint Response Plan (JRP) for the Rohingya crisis reports that the majority of the population are women and children (52 percent are women and girls; 55 percent are children under 18). Camp conditions are improving, but there are still major issues. All refugees and members of the Bangladeshi host community are facing challenges and significant needs that have not yet been adequately addressed, such as the need for cooking fuel and shortages of firewood (which are creating deforestation), health risks, higher prices in markets, water shortages and protection needs such as lighting at night.

Ukhia and Teknaf are areas that are prone to disasters such as cyclonic storms, flooding and, recently, landslides due to indiscriminate deforestation of hills in order to provide shelter for Rohingya refugees. With the monsoon season having started and running from June to September, access to resources is likely to be further reduced and vulnerability is likely to increase for both refugees and host communities.

This gender analysis was conducted to understand the different risks and vulnerabilities but also opportunities and skills for Rohingya and host community women, men, boys and girls. It was led by Oxfam in partnership with Action against Hunger and Save the Children, and produced with analysis, comments and recommendations from CARE, UNHCR, the Inter Sector Coordination Group (ISCG) and UN Women. Data collection was conducted over three weeks from 8 April to 29 April 2018. The work aimed to identify the different needs, concerns, risks and vulnerabilities of women, girls, boys and men in both Rohingya refugee communities and host communities in the Cox’s Bazar district of Bangladesh.

The analysis shows various gaps in the humanitarian response for both communities, especially in terms of accountability, communication with affected communities and disaster preparedness, but also in equitable access to services, in particular for women and girls, and especially for the Rohingya community. The key findings are presented below, along with recommendations for action.

  • Findings Recommendations Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), including menstrual hygiene management (MHM)
  • There is insufficient WASH infrastructure to cover the needs of the community, especially a lack of segregation of latrines by gender and a lack of bathing facilities.
  • Women’s MHM needs are largely unmet.
  • The WASH sector should prioritize household-level water sources as well as sufficient and gendersegregated latrine facilities. If this is not possible, then a minimum requirement should be consultation with women and girls on the management of WASH facilities, ensuring that their feedback is collected and that it informs changes.
  • Every female latrine should incorporate an MHM space.
  • Separate and private spaces need to be identified for women to bathe.
  • WASH infrastructure should be regularly monitored to ensure that it remains compliant with minimum standards for safety and security (including lights and locks on doors), as well as MHM requirements.
  • Ensure budgeting for regular distributions of dignity kits, modifying their contents in accordance with needs and the context of the camps; the targeting of female-headed
ROHINGYA REFUGEE RESPONSE GENDER ANALYSIS
  • Rohingya Refugee Response Gender Analysis: Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities 5 households and adolescent girls should also be ensured through house-to-house distributions. Emergency Food Security and Vulnerable Livelihoods (EFSVL)
  • The Rohingya community’s lack of access to opportunities for incomegenerating activities (IGAs) is a cause of great concern.
  • Rohingya women’s access to IGAs is more restricted than in the host community; this is due specifically to conservative views but also to a lack of opportunities and capacity building around existing skills in both communities.
  • Concerns have been raised around safety in aid distributions for women, girls and boys.
  • Advocate with key policy makers for the implementation of IGAs in camps to provide much needed livelihood opportunities for both women and men. As cash grants for Rohingya refugees are currently restricted, interim opportunities and possible options need to be found for both Rohingya and host communities, while taking into consideration the findings of the Rapid Care Analysis (RCA) conducted by Oxfam in March 2018 and available online.1
  • Empower women and girls through activities that will give them opportunities to access and control resources and ensure that childcare support is provided for women who are engaged in IGAs. Also undertake awareness raising with men on the benefits of women’s economic empowerment, especially in the refugee community.
  • Ensure that support is provided in the distribution of aid to femaleand child-headed households.
  • Invest in community kitchens, kitchen utensils and firewood substitutes to reduce the burden of household work related to cooking. Nutrition
  • There are concerns about undernutrition among children up to five years of age, with particular difficulties for breastfeeding children under six months of age, as well as concerns about undernutrition among women and girls, as men and boys are prioritized for food intake.
  • There are also concerns regarding malnutrition of infants.
  • Monitor gender-specific and other harmful traditional practices linked to gender dynamics to prevent undernutrition, and support access to nutrition treatment.
  • Develop tailored, gender-inclusive information, education and communication (IEC) materials on nutrition, adapted to the context.
  • Include more men, boys and elderly people, especially mothers-in-law, in nutrition education and behaviour change activities, including by engaging fathers/male caregivers to attend nutrition sessions and to learn the benefits of infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practices and the nutrition requirements for children under five. Include cooking demonstrations led by men as well as women, with a focus on genderand agespecific nutrition requirements.
  • Sensitize communities on IYCF services and reinforce family and community support, with a special focus on barriers or challenges to IYCF practices.
  • Support mothers through counselling on IYCF, specifically breastfeeding practices, and psychosocial support and involve influential family members to create an enabling environment for caregiving.
  • Promote the involvement of men in sharing caregiving responsibilities to reduce women’s workload and to encourage more equal sharing of parenting responsibilities.
  • Ensure that both men and women are provided with information on women’s and children’s health and
ROHINGYA REFUGEE RESPONSE GENDER ANALYSIS
  • 6 Rohingya Refugee Response Gender Analysis: Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities nutrition to create an enabling environment for positive nutrition practices.
  • Target health promotion activities at women/mothers/female caregivers and design specific strategies to engage men/fathers/male caregivers, especially on the importance of early healthcare-seeking behaviour.
  • Target traditional healthcare providers within the community for communication on behaviour change to reduce harmful practices, as well as to develop the capacity of influential community members.
  • Protection
  • There are various fears in both host and refugee communities (confirming the findings of many reports on protection), including a lack of mobility for women and a lack of lighting at night.
  • Boys and girls are particularly vulnerable to protection risks.
  • There are challenges in understanding protection issues among service providers, including government, law enforcement agencies and majhis (camp leaders) in Rohingya communities, in addition to a lack of knowledge about human rights and protectionrelated services among Rohingya women.
  • Transgender people are excluded, and there is a lack of research on this issue.
  • Support the establishment of community-based self-help groups such as community centres, child-friendly spaces (CFS) and women-friendly spaces, to address the protection, psychosocial and livelihood needs of refugees.
  • Set up educational facilities or temporary learning centres for adolescent girls and boys and provide targeted support, with male and female facilitators. Encourage the attendance of both mothers and fathers at CFS and girl-friendly spaces and other child protection activities.
  • Extend the provision of cloth to be used for clothing and other purposes to all beneficiaries, including girls.
  • Identify the scope for addressing child protection and GBV issues via community leaders, police and other security actors.
  • Special emphasis needs to be put on the prevention of trafficking of women and girls.
  • Conduct community awareness activities on human rights.
  • A comprehensive study is needed on LGBT issues and policies need to be developed to protect transgender people. Gender-based violence (GBV)
  • GBV affects women and girls disproportionately, in both communities. Harmful traditional practices such as child marriage are highly prevalent in both communities, with an increase in polygamy seen in the Rohingya community.
  • Domestic violence is seen as an acceptable social norm, and since the crisis it has increased in both communities, due to the difficult environment and the lack of livelihood opportunities.
  • There is insufficient access to GBV services, due to stigma but also due to a lack of information on services.
  • Ensure that dissemination of information on GBV referral systems is trickled down to communities, especially women and girls.
  • Engage men and boys, women and girls and community leaders in behaviour change activities around gender equality and GBV prevention.
  • Engage men and boys positively in addressing GBV, especially domestic violence, sexual harassment against women and girls and polygamy (as a contributing factor to GBV).
  • Ensure that all field staff and key local leaders (including informal women leaders) are trained on key principles around GBV and are familiar with GBV referral systems.
  • Address GBV with the aim of changing harmful social and traditional norms through awarenessraising campaigns in both refugee and host communities, especially to remove stigma for survivors of GBV.
ROHINGYA REFUGEE RESPONSE GENDER ANALYSIS
  • Rohingya Refugee Response Gender Analysis: Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities 7 Power structures at household and community levels
  • Men are power holders in key decision making at the household level in both communities, but more so in the Rohingya community.
  • Majhis have a disproportionate degree of power, and reports have emerged of abuses of power.
  • Build on the small number of male and female voices currently calling for more participation in household decision making by identifying such individuals and encouraging the formation of groups for community discussion.
  • Provide awareness-raising sessions for community leaders, including majhis and imams, using their existing influence and expanding it to wider community leadership, both formal and informal.
  • Work with religious and community leaders and key persons within the community, such as schoolteachers, who are informal leaders other than majhis, ensuring both male and female leadership.
  • Utilize these informal leaders in the community and their alternative views on gender roles to decentralize power away from the majhis.
  • Empower informal women leaders in the Rohingya community and engage with formal women leaders in the host community.
  • Promote the active involvement of women and adolescent boys and girls in decision making processes, especially within existing structures created by the wider humanitarian response. Domestic care work
  • Domestic care work is considered in both communities to be a task for women, though since displacement there have been some shifts in attitude – for example, men in the Rohingya community helping with firewood collection.
  • RCA report is confirmed in terms of care patterns for both communities, with more information needed on the role of adolescent girls in care work.
  • Care work also affects access to services for female-headed households.
  • Use the recognition of care work as an entry point to revaluing women’s work in the home, with separate reflection sessions for women and men focused on care work and based on the RCA findings, with the aim of redistributing care work within the family.
  • Include men and boys in awareness-raising sessions on sharing responsibility for childcare and other domestic work to reduce negative perceptions around care work.
  • Reduce the burden of care work for women by improving existing WASH facilities and providing new ones.
  • All humanitarian agencies should provide labour support to help female-headed households transport relief supplies from distribution points back to their homes.
  • Act on the recommendations of the RCA, which can be found online.2 Women’s and girls’ empowerment and leadership
  • There is a lack of formal female leadership in the Rohingya community.
  • There is a need for community women’s groups and also youth groups.
  • Access to leadership roles is slightly easier for women in the host community.
  • There is a need to further understand the community engagement process, especially the various options
  • Support women-only self-help groups to provide collective support and life skills to reduce dependence on men for basic needs, and sensitize families on the benefits of allowing women to participate.
  • Womenand girl-friendly spaces (as well as youthfriendly spaces in general) are needed to support consultation and confidence building. Ideally, these should be linked with protection and education or livelihood activities or any other activity that brings together women and girls, even informally.
ROHINGYA REFUGEE RESPONSE GENDER ANALYSIS
  • 8 Rohingya Refugee Response Gender Analysis: Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities for meaningful participation by women and girls.
  • Support women and girls to have access to information, improved health and hygiene practices and psychosocial support in order to create an enabling environment for good nutrition and healthcare practices.
  • Link with existing structures in the host community, in particular to promote women’s rights.
  • Training on gender awareness and gender sensitivity is needed for camp and religious leaders, as is community awareness outreach for men and boys on women’s agency and leadership. They can then be used as influencers to support the recommendations above.
  • Disaster preparedness
  • The lack of information on disaster preparedness among refugees, especially women, is particularly worrying.
  • Host communities are better informed, but concerns were raised nonetheless.
  • Increase disaster preparedness measures across all camps and across host communities, making sure to reach everyone in the community.
  • Organize preparedness activities at household level, including simulation exercises for men, women, boys and girls.
  • Ensure that all community safe centres have adequate privacy for women and girls, either by designating centres for women and men separately (but within close proximity to one another to avoid long separations of family members), or by creating some separation of space within centres by putting up temporary curtains to ensure safety and security and maintain the dignity and comfort of women and girls.
  • Ensure that disaster preparedness activities respond to the specific needs and constraints of women and girls, in particular including sexual and reproductive health (SRH) and MHM considerations from the outset.
  • Engage women and girls alongside men in disaster preparedness activities, from awareness raising to preparation. Access to other services
  • Given the prevailing conservative views within communities, it is likely that women’s access to services will be limited, due to nonsegregation or a limited number of female staff.
  • There is a lack of information about services.
  • Members of the host community raised concerns about curtailed access to services since the influx of refugees.
  • Given the conservative nature of the affected community, the hiring of female staff is of the utmost importance, in line with international organizations’ commitments and guidelines.
  • Ensure that information about the services provided is widely disseminated, and that awareness raising on services is conducted within the community.
  • Further in-depth study is required to explore differential needs related to SRH for women, as well as the differential needs of people with disabilities. Feedback and complaints, including prevention of sexual
  • Despite the introduction of numerous feedback and complaint mechanisms by various organizations, the community – both men and women but more so women –
  • Roll out a concrete plan with clear measures to disseminate information on feedback and complaint mechanisms across camps, groups and genders, especially in relation to PSEA, and ensure that complaints are addressed in a timely manner.
ROHINGYA REFUGEE RESPONSE GENDER ANALYSIS
  • Rohingya Refugee Response Gender Analysis: Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities 9 exploitation and abuse (PSEA) are poorly informed about NGO services. Participants in the research mentioned not being consulted, and not knowing how to submit feedback.
  • It is highly likely that cases of sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) are going underreported.
  • Information is held at the majhi level.
  • Update community feedback and complaint mechanisms so that they are accessible to women, men, girls and boys.
  • Use existing community groups to disseminate information on feedback, complaints and PSEA, as developed by relevant humanitarian clusters.
  • Ensure that information is disseminated through a variety of channels, to include in particular informal leaders and women.
  • Monitor and report on the effectiveness of different measures implemented by each organization.
  • Use the Communication with Communities Working Group (CwC WG) to monitor the use of feedback and complaints mechanisms used by different actors and the efficacy of such services in resolving issues.
  • Capacities and coping strategies
  • The affected population have limited capacity to cope with the effects of the crisis without NGO support.
  • People are likely to engage in negative coping mechanisms.
  • Support the establishment of community-based self-help groups engaging men, women, boys and girls – such as community centres, child-friendly spaces and women-friendly spaces – to address the protection, psychosocial and livelihood needs of refugees and to ensure a coordinated response across the different services offered by aid agencies.
  • Priority needs
  • In addition to IGAs, people consulted in both communities and of both genders raised various other needs that, nine months into the response, are still unmet.
  • Consult with women, men, boys and girls on their needs, validate the findings with communities and adjust programmes accordingly.
  • Coordination is needed among different services provided by aid agencies on the priority needs of the community. Relationships between host community and Rohingya community
  • There is continued and growing negative sentiment within the host community towards the Rohingya refugees, and little has been done to address it.
  • Develop relationships between host and refugee communities through womenand girl-friendly spaces with recreational activities that both can access; similarly, with men’s and boys’ groups.
  • Develop social cohesion programmes between host and refugee communities through appropriate sports or cultural festivals for both men and women.
ROHINGYA REFUGEE RESPONSE GENDER ANALYSIS

10 Rohingya Refugee Response Gender Analysis: Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 ROHINGYA REFUGEE RESPONSE At the time of writing, the total number of Rohingya refugees who have fled the crisis in Myanmar to camps in the Cox’s Bazar district of Bangladesh stood at 905,418,3 with more still trickling in.

This constitutes one of the biggest refugee crises in the world at present.4 The majority of refugees, 82 percent of all households, are living in Ukhia upazila (sub-district), with the second largest group, 17 percent of households, in Teknaf upazila. These sub-districts border Myanmar and are the main crossing points for refugees. The Joint Response Plan (JRP) for the Rohingya crisis reports that the majority of the population are women and children (52 percent are women and girls; 55 percent are children under 18).5 Camp conditions are improving, but there are still major issues. All refugees are facing challenges and significant needs that have not yet been adequately addressed, such as the need for cooking fuel and shortages of firewood (which are creating deforestation), health risks, higher prices in markets,6 water shortages and protection needs such as lighting at night.7 Ukhia and Teknaf are areas that are prone to disasters such as cyclonic storms, flooding and, recently, landslides due to indiscriminate deforestation of hills in order to provide shelter for Rohingya refugees.

With the monsoon season about to start and running from June to September, access to resources is likely to be further reduced and vulnerability is likely to increase for both refugees and host communities.

1.2 HOST COMMUNITY The speed and scale of the refugee influx has put great strain on the host population in one of Bangladesh’s poorest districts, where levels of food insecurity and unemployment are among the highest in the country, and livelihood opportunities are limited.8 The added arrival of more than half a million refugees to the existing refugees, concentrated in the two sub-districts of Teknaf and Ukhia, has further depressed the price of labour and has increased food prices.9 The recently finalized JRP estimates a total of 336,000 people in need in Bangladeshi host communities in these most vulnerable districts.10 Depletion of water and firewood supplies was a key concern raised by the host community following the arrival of huge numbers of refugees.11 An assessment carried out in December by UNDP and UN Women reported that the host community had almost universally negative views of the Rohingya.12 1.3 GENDER AND GBV ISSUES IN ROHINGYA AND HOST COMMUNITIES The Rohingya are a conservative community, with social and cultural norms that create tensions around women’s empowerment.

Women generally experience barriers to freedom of movement and access to and control over resources, with girls’ access and mobility restricted once they reach puberty.13 An increase in paid work for women has resulted in increased domestic violence in the home and harassment outside it.14 A Rapid Gender Analysis (RGA) conducted by CARE reported that, in one camp, every woman and girl was either a survivor of sexual assault or a witness to it from their time in Myanmar, but that women felt relatively safe in camps in Bangladesh.15 However, various reports have shown that crowded settlements, a lack of appropriate WASH facilities and increased vulnerability are putting women and girls at risk of gender-based violence (GBV),16 including sexual harassment, assault and sexual

Rohingya Refugee Response Gender Analysis: Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities 11 violence,17 with hundreds of incidents of GBV reported weekly.18 A lack of lighting is affecting refugees’ mobility at night and is of particular concern in relation to risks of GBV.19 Women’s mobility is also restricted by the observance of purdah,20 which limits their ability to access aid or GBV services,21 a problem compounded by the stigma faced by GBV survivors and the limited information to which women have access.22 Adolescent girls are highly vulnerable to GBV threats and have very restricted mobility outside the home, so their access to services and information is even more limited.23 Information dissemination still needs to be improved, as does access to GBV services24 and to sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services, which are hampered by an insufficient number of female doctors and a lack of gender-segregated facilities.25 The JRP reported that 62 percent of refugees are unable to communicate with aid providers;26 this figure is likely to be higher for women, given the traditional expectation that they should stay at home and perform care work.27 The illiteracy rate is reported to be 73 percent, with the preferred method for communication reported as being face-to-face, and majhis (camp leaders)28 are the most common source of information.29 Female-headed households or households with no male relatives are those least likely to receive information or support.30 In addition, the fact that almost all majhis are men means that the voices of women and girls are often not heard.

There is an evident need for female leadership, especially in the Rohingya community; in the host community, there are some female leaders who can be engaged. There is also a need for more female staff to provide services for women and girls.31 Cases of child marriage and forced marriage have been documented, involving girls as young as 15 and attributable to poverty and displacement. Forced prostitution and trafficking are also risks faced by women and girls in the camps,32 and such cases are likely to be under-reported. Polygamy has also been reported to have increased within the Rohingya community as a result of displacement.33 Overcrowding is likely to exacerbate many safety risks, such as physical and sexual abuse, and it also means a lack of privacy, especially in WASH facilities.

The lack of space for community structures also limits the ability of humanitarian actors to provide protection services, including community centres, child-friendly spaces (CFS) and safe spaces for women and girls. Women in host communities have reported increased limitations on their freedom of movement and have expressed fear of the new arrivals, due to overcrowding and the lack of privacy.34 The risk of GBV is high in the host community and is likely to increase in times of economic stress.35 As in the Rohingya community, child marriage is common in the host community, and is used by poorer households as a coping strategy in times of crisis.36 Domestic violence is also common in both communities,37 with women the primary victims and their husbands the perpetrators, with an increased risk of domestic violence in the Rohingya community since displacement.38 This is perceived as an issue to be dealt with internally by the family, with no external interference.39 Female-headed households are likely to be much more vulnerable.

The IOM’s Needs and Population Monitoring (NPM) report estimates that 12 percent of households in the Rohingya community are likely to be female-headed and that 17.35 percent of the Rohingya mothers are single mothers.40 Research for the ACAPS Host Community Review found that, as of December 2017, 45 percent of female-headed households in the host community were vulnerable or very vulnerable, compared with 35 percent of male-headed households.41 The Rohingya Emergency Vulnerability Assessment (REVA) assessment from December 2017 concludes that food insecurity for women in the host community is almost as bad as for the Rohingya community, with only one in three women having access to a diversified diet.42 Gender inequality and GBV are often indirect causes of undernutrition in humanitarian settings, especially among women, adolescent girls and children.

According to IASC’s GBV guidelines, gender-inequitable access to food and services is a form of GBV that can, in its turn, contribute to other forms of GBV.43 A SMART survey on nutrition showed that 19 percent of children in makeshift

12 Rohingya Refugee Response Gender Analysis: Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities settlements, 24.3 percent of children in the Kutupalong refugee camp and 14.3 percent of children in the Nayapara camp were suffering from global acute malnutrition (GAM).44 This gender analysis plays a critical role in ensuring that humanitarian actors take into consideration the needs, capacities, priorities, gender-related contextual influencing factors and scope of intervention for men, women, girls and boys in the current crisis. In addition, women’s voices have rarely been heard in this response and there is a need for better integration, consultation and empowerment of women and girls. This analysis is a first step in that direction. 1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE GENDER ANALYSIS The aim of the analysis is to identify the different needs, interests, risks and vulnerabilities of women, girls, boys and men in the affected areas. The analysis will inform current and future programming by Oxfam, Action Against Hunger and Save the Children and also that of CARE International, UN Women, UNHCR and other actors through the Inter Sector Coordination Group (ISCG). It will serve as a tool for advocacy and will inform the wider humanitarian response. Its specific objectives are to:
  • Identify differing gendered needs, interests and capacities relating to relevant sectors (WASH, Emergency Food Security and Vulnerable Livelihoods (EFSVL), Nutrition, Protection) of women, men, boys and girls in both refugee and host communities;
  • Identify differing gendered impacts of coping mechanisms, relations and roles of women, men, boys and girls, as well as the existing context and opportunities for economic empowerment in both refugee and host communities;
  • Identify gender norms, attitudes and beliefs that drive risks and vulnerabilities in both refugee and host communities, including harmful social and traditional norms;
  • Identify opportunities for increasing the voice and participation of women and girls in decision making and humanitarian design and planning in both refugee and host communities;
  • Identify the specific needs of survivors of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and the extent to which the current response is preventing and responding to SGBV (in line with the relevant IASC Guidelines) in both refugee and host communities;
  • Identify the level of disaster preparedness of women, men, boys and girls, as well as potential coping mechanisms and support needed in both refugee and host communities;
  • Develop actionable recommendations for each sector/cluster to ensure that women and girls have equal access to, and benefit from, the humanitarian response in both refugee and host communities.

Rohingya Refugee Response Gender Analysis: Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities 13 2 METHODOLOGY 2.1 DATA COLLECTION METHODS The assessment used mixed methods, consisting of a desk review of extensive secondary data, qualitative methods such as focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs) and quantitative methods using the SurveyCTO data collection tool and direct observations. The desk review provided an understanding of the current situation and a preliminary analysis of gender gaps, while a review by technical teams ensured that the data collection questions were appropriate.

The four techniques used for the collection of primary data (SurveyCTO data collection using handsets, KIIs, FGDs and direct observation) formed the basis of the rest of this report. A team of 24 enumerators – 10 male and 14 female, from Oxfam, Action Against Hunger and Save the Children and including gender and monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning (MEAL) staff from all three organizations – collected and cleaned the data. The enumerators received three days of training on how to conduct a gender analysis and the techniques to be used, as well as on the three organizations’ codes of conduct.

A reaction protocol was set up to deal with potential disclosures during FGDs or KIIs, including training on safe and ethical referral. Once the data was collected, a team of gender staff from Oxfam, Action Against Hunger, Save the Children, CARE International, UN Women and UNHCR worked jointly on the analysis and on the production of this document.

2.2 SAMPLING The gender analysis was designed to ensure proper representation of both refugee and host communities. The initial intent was for the survey sample to be 70 percent refugees and 30 percent host community. There are now close to a million Rohingya refugees living alongside host communities, but the hosts comprise only around 0.25 percent of the total population. Therefore, the sample size for the survey was computed based on the household population of the camps and the surrounding host communities, with a 95 percent level of confidence and 5 percent margin of error (Table 1).

Table 1: Sampling exercise prior to data collection, and number of households Camp/host community Households Population Sample size computation Nayapara Expansion 5,887 14,002 6% 21 Unchiprang 4,619 19,502 4% 17 Camp 3 9,109 43,079 9% 33 Camp 4 7,191 28,263 7% 26 Camp 17 1,127 1,740 1% 4 Camp 12 4,896 23,726 5% 18 Camp 19 4,354 20,395 4% 16 Camp 10 8,060 37,096 8% 29 Camp 18 6,801 32,274 6% 25 Camp 2E 6,573 38,878 6% 24

14 Rohingya Refugee Response Gender Analysis: Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities Camp 2W 5,458 28,095 5% 20 Camp 7 5,458 44,965 5% 20 Camp 6 5,694 27,144 5% 21 Camp 5 6,153 29,789 6% 22 Camp 8E 7,730 37,500 7% 28 Camp 8W 7,420 32,078 7% 27 Camp 9 8,648 40,755 8% 31 Total 105,178 499,281 100% 383 To support the findings of the survey and to ensure the inclusion of host community views in the analysis, a higher number of FGDs was conducted with members of host communities. All of the four data collection techniques (survey, FGDs, KIIs and observation notes) were employed in the two main refugee camp areas of Ukhia and Teknaf in the Cox’s Bazar district, focusing on the Kutupalong–Balukhali mega-camp as well as on the camps in Unchiprang and Nayapara and the host communities around these camps.

For the survey, data was in the end collected from a total of 482 households (more than the intended sample size shown in Table 1). The breakdown of respondents is shown in Figures 1–5. 90% 10% Figure 2: Respondents by area Ukhia Teknaf 9% 91% Figure 3: Respondents by category Host Refugee 36% 64% Figure 1: Respondents segregated by gender Male Female

Rohingya Refugee Response Gender Analysis: Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities 15 To balance the host/refugee ratio obtained from the sampling, the 21 FGDs conducted were split as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Breakdown of FGDs Gender Category Location Number of FGDs Female Refugee Unchiprang, Nayapara, Balukhali, Kutupalong 6 Female Host Nayapara, Unchiprang, Zadimura, Ukhia 5 Male Refugee Kutupalong, Balukhali, Unchiprang 5 Male Host Ukhia, Nayapara, Unchiprang 5 To balance the survey and the FGDs, a total of 27 KIIs were conducted with local formal and informal leaders, such as leaders of women’s groups, female and male volunteers, leaders of local host communities, majhis (camp and block), religious leaders and teachers (including madrasa teachers). A further seven interviews were conducted with members of the host and refugee communities who were not leaders in their community, but nevertheless provided useful information.

The full breakdown of KIIs is shown in Table 3. 15 7 29 10 20 21 30 28 9 18 5 19 6 18 32 22 14 10 16 19 21 12 5 14 10 7 15 12 13 6 3 11 Figure 4: Respondents by location and gender (individuals) Female Male 107 10 2 119 195 163 3 361 5 5 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Female Male Other Total/Ave ALL Figure 5: Profile of respondents: heads of households Child (

16 Rohingya Refugee Response Gender Analysis: Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities Table 3: Breakdown of KIIs Gender Category Location Number Female KII Refugee Unchiprang, Nayapara, Balukhali 4 Female KII and community interview Host Jadimura, Ukhia, Balukhali, Kutupalong 4 + 3 Male KII and community interview Refugee Nayapara, Balukhali, Unchiprang, Kutupalong 15 + 2 Male KII and community interview Host Unchiprang, Razpalong 4 +2 Observations were made in all four camps – Balukhali, Kutupalong, Unchiprang and Nayapara – to inform this document.

In addition, and using different tools, Save the Children conducted a safety audit and assessment with 207 children and adolescents (106 boys and 101 girls) to ensure that young people’s voices were heard.

The children were aged 8–12 years and the adolescents 13–17 years, and eight areas were covered (Camps 10, 18 (Zones SS and XX), 17, 4, 1W and 1E and Chakmarkul). The audit was conducted using a participatory methodology designed for children that engages with boys and girls to identify the risks they face and to provide recommendations to mitigate and address these risks. Issues relating to the monsoon season were also discussed. The activity was designed to consult boys and girls separately and children and adolescents separately. In a few of the sessions girls and boys worked together, but particularly when discussing sensitive issues the groups were segregated.

Save the Children also conducted an adolescent needs assessment reaching 416 adolescents (160 boys and 256 girls) through a survey using the KoBoCollect tool. The aim of the assessment was to identify the needs and priorities of adolescent girls and boys and the barriers to adolescent girls accessing common play areas (girland child-friendly space) and learning spaces. Of the respondents, 8 percent were children with disabilities, though no detailed information was collected on the nature of disability. Figure 6 shows a breakdown of respondents. These findings have been included in the general analysis below, and also highlighted separately where relevant.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Ukhia Teknaf Figure 6: Profile of respondents according to sex and location boys girls

Rohingya Refugee Response Gender Analysis: Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities 17 2.3 CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS All data collection documents were translated from English to Bangla, as none of the enumerators spoke English. In addition, the data collected from the refugee community had to be interpreted from the Rohingya language. Having multiple translations – both ways, from English to Bangla to Rohingya and also from Rohingya to Bangla and then to English for the analysis – inevitably meant that many nuances of the conversations were lost in the analysis.

The three-day training on data collection left very little time for the KII module or to ensure that the survey and FGDs were well understood and to incorporate all the interpreting. This showed in the results; the KIIs were primarily conducted with male respondents, and the seven interviews conducted with regular community members did not give a wider view of the community and left some questions unanswered. Another limitation was that in the FGDs with men the answers and documentation were limited. It was unclear whether this was due to the enumerators’ ability to probe or to the fact that many questions were related to issues around GBV.

In a few of the FGDs with women, it was noted that younger participants were not at ease discussing or sharing their experiences in front of older women and that most of the time the older women were dominating the conversation. Challenges were faced in engaging adolescent girls in locations that lacked a girl-friendly space, as girls – adolescent girls in particular – face restrictions on their access to public spaces and their ability to leave their homes and move around the camp.

In general, when survey findings and the findings from the FGDs and KIIs were contradictory, the latter were thought to be more reliable than the responses given to the survey. This could be because respondents did not fully understand the questions they were being asked, or because the enumerators rushed through questions due to the large number of points covered in the questionnaire.

18 Rohingya Refugee Response Gender Analysis: Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities 3 FINDINGS OF THE GENDER ANALYSIS 3.1 ACCESS TO WASH FACILITIES Based on observations and the findings from the FGDs and KIIs, people have access to basic water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) facilities in the camps and in host communities.

However, there are improvements to be made in terms of the number of facilities, their location and their design. One of the survey questions was about the time needed to collect water: 66 percent of respondents said that they spent on average less than 30 minutes per trip to collect water, 11 percent said 30–60 minutes and 20 percent said more than 60 minutes, as shown in Table 7. Few differences were observed if responses were segregated by gender, suggesting that either the men were responding for the women’s time or the men were also responsible for water collection. Given that the average family has 5–6 members, and taking into account the size of water containers, it is very likely that water needs to be fetched on average five times each day to accommodate all the drinking, washing and cooking needs of a typical family.

This means that on average a woman spends 2.5 hours a day collecting water, though men and children also help with water collection.

Female participants in an FGD in the host community, in Nayapara, said that now that refugee communities were using their water points they no longer felt safe sending their daughters to collect water. Women in two other FGDs, in Ukhia and Zadimura, said that there was water shortage as a result of the refugees’ presence, a point that was also mentioned in three male FGDs. When asked whether they had been consulted by NGOs on the locations of WASH facilities, the answers from male and female participants in both Rohingya and host communities were very similar, with around 60 percent saying that they had been consulted (Figures 8a–10b).

66% 20% 11% 3% Figure 7: Time spent collecting water Less than 30 minutes More than 60 minutes Between 30 minutes and 60 minutes Don't know 39% 61% Figure 8a: Were you or your family consulted by an NGO before water point installation? (male) No Yes 40% 60% Figure 8b: Were you or your family consulted by an NGO before water point installation? (female) No Yes

Rohingya Refugee Response Gender Analysis: Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities 19 However, feedback from the FGDs and KIIs reveals that beneficiaries do not have information regarding humanitarian services or assistance. Participants in 10 of the 21 FGDs said that NGOs did not seek feedback from them, with only two groups (both female refugee) saying that they had had NGOs question them on their specific needs and preferences. This suggests that the questions may not have been correctly understood by the respondents, either due to translation issues or rushing through the questionnaire, both issues mentioned under challenges.

Asked whether WASH facilities were safe, at least 62 percent of respondents answered yes to the three questions, with similar answers for men and women (Figures 11a–13b). 30% 70% Figure 9a: Were you consulted on the location of latrines? (male) No Yes 32% 68% Figure 9b: Were you consulted on the location of latrines? (female) No Yes 39% 61% Figure 10a: Were you consulted on the location of bathing facilities? (male) No Yes 45% 55% Figure 10b: Were you consulted on the location of bathing facilities? (female) No Yes 34% 66% Figure 11b: Do you think that the location of the water point is safe?

(female) No Yes 25% 75% Figure 11a: Do you think that the location of the water point is safe? (male) No Yes 35% 65% Figure 12b: Do you have access to a safe place for bathing? (female) No Yes 38% 62% Figure 12a: Do you have access to a safe place for bathing? (male) No Yes

20 Rohingya Refugee Response Gender Analysis: Recognizing and responding to gender inequalities However, it is important to note the observation by the enumerators that the concept of safety was not sufficiently understood and that more research is needed to understand the differences between the way the term ‘safety’ is used by humanitarian actors and the way it is translated and used in communities. More research is needed to understand how communities understand safety. The FGDs painted a different picture to that implied by the survey. A female member of the host community, in an FGD in Nayapara, claimed that WASH facilities were not women-friendly (a point that was confirmed by observations in both communities).

Women taking part in all-female FGDs in the refugee community said that they could not bathe and wash their clothes regularly, that there was no privacy and that it was not safe for women and children at night (five FGDs with women refugees in all four locations, as well as one with male refugees in Kutupalong). Three FGDs (both female and male) and one key informant mentioned the large number of families using the same latrine as a concern among both women and men in the refugee community (reportedly 12–20 families, so roughly 80–100 individuals).

Some organizations are providing bathing facilities for women, but such facilities are not available in all camp areas. The number of segregated toilets is insufficient for the refugee community and overall there are not enough latrine facilities for the host community, as noted by observation. There were a number of reasons why people found WASH facilities unsafe. Of those who answered that latrines were unsafe, the biggest reason given by men was no segregation (19 percent) and by women night-time security (22 percent). No privacy was given by 11 percent of men and 13 percent of women (Figures 14a and 14b).

15% 18% 17% 4% 19% 11% 15% 1% Figure 14a: Reason why you think latrines are unsafe (male) No latrine at all Not secure at night Latrine is in an unsafe place There are no locks on the door No separate toilets for males and females No privacy No lighting Other 28% 72% Figure 13a: Do you have access to safe latrines? (male) No Yes 31% 69% Figure 13b: Do you have access to safe latrines? (female) No Yes

You can also read
Next part ... Cancel